Court upholds Hells Angel’s acquittal, despite rude judge, Ian Mulgrew, Vancouver Sun, Apr 30, 2008
The controversial acquittal of an elite Nomad member of the Hells Angels caught with 52 kilograms of cocaine worth $1.56 million has been upheld in spite of the judge’s profane comments during the prosecutor’s presentation of the case.
In a unanimous decision, the British Columbia Court of Appeal on Tuesday said there was no reason to impugn a rookie ruling by Justice Peter Leask because his injudicious comments did not constitute an error in law.
Even if Justice Leask did not consider a piece of evidence because he forgot it or because he did not consider it relevant, while troubling, that would be much too thin a thread on which to set aside an acquittal and order a new trial, the judges concluded.
That means Parliament did not give the federal attorney-general the power to appeal an unreasonable verdict just because the judge was stupid…”
Appeal court orders new trial for accused drug dealer, Neal Hall, Vancouver, March 13, 2010
“Three judges of the B.C. Court of Appeal on Friday ordered a new trial for Nima Ghavami, who is accused of distributing and trafficking methamphetamine with members of the Hells Angels.
“Ghavami is accused of actively participating in a plan to produce and distribute methamphetamine by handling about $100,000 cash and 14 kilograms of methamphetamine over a one-year period.
“The trial judge, Justice Peter Leask, previously entered a judicial stay of proceedings of the charges against Ghavami because of a 44-month trial delay, which the judge found was caused mostly by the Crown.
“…The Crown appealed Leask’s ruling and three appeal court judges found the trial judge made a number of errors…”